Judging objectively what really happened 10 years ago with George Abela

When the history of the past 12 years comes to be written, one will find ambiguities that need to be cleared up regarding the fortunes and misfortunes of Labour Party. The MLP moved from a thumping electoral victory in 1996 to a dismal debacle 22 months later. In between there was turmoil within its ranks, enacted on the open stage of the House of Representatives, with former leader Dom Mintoff as its protagonist.

I have sketched an outline of those events in my collection of memories published last year. I am not aware that others have as yet stepped forward to fill in any gaps. History is best written from an objective distance. Nevertheless with too much distance some aspects of what really happened could get smudged. On the other hand, even those who have lived through the times might find it difficult to understand what went on.

It remains a mystery to me, for instance how it was that there could be 20,000 votes swing against Labour in as little as the 22 months between the 1996 and 1998 elections. I do not believe that can be attributed to the shenanigans by Mintoff against the leadership of the party. He may have pushed Alfred Sant into calling a fresh election far out of season - Sant may have felt he did not want to be nudged into a blind alley by his wily old foe - but that itself should have led to a sympathy vote from among many thousands of anti-Mintoffians. Instead, a majority of 12,000 votes was turned into a deficit of 8,000, using round figures.

Anti-Sant writers attribute it to his record in a mere 22 months. Historians might find more to it than that, although they may have to rely strongly on oral accounts. In which case, they had better get cracking.

One major area of ambiguity concerned the departure of deputy leader George Abela, an integral part of the 1996 Labour winning team, from Sant's side when the latter manoeuvred the MLP into the early election which brought about its crushing downfall. Such ambiguity has lingered for 10 years.

Did Abela first abide with a National Executive motion by Sant to take the party into an early general election, and then flip his view when the issue was discussed in an extraordinary general conference? That question was dragged up again in the current campaign to elect a new MLP leader, which has Dr Abela as one of its five candidates.

Ironically the answer has been provided by someone within the current MLP who passed on to the Illum newspaper a copy of the minutes of that fateful MLP National Executive meeting 10 years ago. The calculated leak was intended to discredit Abela, and that was how the newspaper used it. A direct reading of the minutes shows otherwise, however.

Under the heading 'Political situation', the only item on the agenda, the minutes summarise leader Sant's exposition of the situation, which I shall synthesise.

Sant said the meeting was called to see what action was to be taken once Mintoff had again voted against the Labour government, and was moreover saying he did not agree with the leadership of the party, thereby affecting the credibility of the Labour government. "Therefore," record the minutes, "the leader proposed that on the morrow, July 9, 1998, an extraordinary general conference be called to discuss his proposal that 'a general election should be called'."

The motion was unanimously approved, that is, by Abela as well. Very simply the approval he and the rest of the executive gave was "to discuss" Sant's proposal, and not to approve it.

Abela went along with the decision to discuss, leaving the discussion, and his own arguments, to take place in the general conference itself.

During the extraordinary general conference Abela argued strongly against going for an election at that point in time.

He made his opposition abundantly clear, without the least ambiguity. And he did so convincingly - he is on film doing so and receiving a standing ovation from the delegates who attended the conference.

There was, in fact, another speaker who opposed the motion during the general conference discussion, though he was also a member of the National Executive. But whereas Abela said that if the general conference passed the motion he would "stop there", the other speaker said he would go along with the eventual decision.

With the minutes of the National Executive and the footage of the general conference in hand, historians should be able to examine critically but objectively what really happened 10 years ago.

Abela should have every reason to believe that his position will be unambiguously vindicated by them. By the way, historians will not forget that it is the Prime Minister decides to advise the President to call a general election, not any party general conference.